7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Poked, Prodded, and Privacy: Parents, Children, and Pediatric Genetic Testing
No full text“Knowledge is power,” so the saying goes. But does that always prove true? What if knowledge comes without the power or resources to act? What if knowledge is unwanted and uninvited?
Significant advancements in genetics and genomics have thrust these and other difficult questions into the professional and public discourse. These developments include “pediatric predisposition genetic testing” (“PPGT”), a term used in this Article to describe genetic testing performed on a minor with parental consent to either determine with certainty or predict the risk that the minor will develop an adult-onset disease.
PPGT pits parental rights against children’s rights in unique and unprecedented ways. American law and tradition have long recognized the rights of parents to consent to myriad types of healthcare services for their children, presuming that parents act in their children’s best interests. But PPGT raises questions about that presumption. Problematically, PPGT may impose unwanted information on nonconsenting children—information those children must live with for the rest of their lives. Too often, children become pawns in larger sociopolitical battles fought primarily between parents and the state, with the children’s rights and interests cast aside. With PPGT, where science has outpaced law and policy, children’s rights face subordination yet again.
To mitigate harm and protect children’s rights in this “age of genetics,” this Article argues for the development of a novel theoretical framework: a “right to future privacy.” In doing so, it eschews the existing jurisprudence’s myopic focus on parental rights and parent-state conflicts and proposes a framework that accounts for children’s privacy and autonomy amid fast-developing, and often under-regulated, technologies like PPGT. At a time when privacy rights are threatened by myriad sources, this Article reaffirms and reinvigorates the value of children’s lifelong genetic and personal privacy
Reducing Harm: The Legal Viability of Supervised Consumption Sites in Georgia
Full text linkEvery five minutes in the United States, someone dies from a drug overdose. This public health crisis, referred to as the opioid epidemic, caused the federal government and many states and localities to issue public health emergency declarations. Despite billions of dollars in funding and response at every level of government, overdoses continue to increase.
The complexity of addiction prevention and treatment, socioeconomic inequalities, and the stigmatization of drug use make the opioid crisis difficult to solve. The severity of the epidemic led many jurisdictions to adopt once-controversial harm reduction approaches aimed at reducing the stigma and negative impacts of drug use, including supervised consumption sites (SCS). SCSs are proven to be cost-effective, lifesaving, and crime-reducing, but often face intense political and public opposition due to misperceptions that they encourage drug use and cause crime in surrounding communities. Although many harm reduction approaches have gained acceptance, SCSs remain controversial and legally precarious.
This Note discusses the legal landscape around SCSs and the viability of local implementation of SCSs under current Georgia law. Although Georgia has shown openness to harm reduction at the state level in recent years, political and public opposition may present a significant challenge to state authorization of SCSs. However, Georgia’s home rule and public health authority law provides counties and municipalities with significant autonomy which may be used to authorize SCSs at the local level. Ultimately, SCSs likely face a rocky path forward in Georgia. However, localities in other states with more formidable legal barriers than Georgia’s have successfully moved forward with SCSs through a combination of local authorization and consensus building. It is the prerogative and duty of Georgia localities to protect the public health of their constituents, and SCS advocates should continue to pave the way by fighting stigma and educating partners
Applying a Social Ecological Model to Medical Legal Partnerships Practice and Research
No full textThe social ecological model (SEM) is a conceptual framework that recognizes individuals function within multiple interactive systems and contextual environments that influence their health. Medical Legal Partnerships (MLPs) address the social determinants of health through partnerships between health providers and civil legal services. This paper explores how the conceptual framework of SEM can be applied to the MLP model, which also uses a multidimensional approach to address an individual\u27s social determinants of health
Jack Tribble v. Andrew Heaner, et. al., Order on Defendants\u27 Joint Motion to Dismiss
Full text linkBridging the Gap to Every American: How a National Regulatory Sandbox Can Prompt Radical Collaboration to Adopt Legal Artificial Intelligence Tools
Full text linkThe United States of America is at a crossroads. The foundational promises of the American dream—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—have been thrust into public pessimism as the nation’s most economically vulnerable populations find themselves outsiders in their own communities, unable to access the legal tools and services required to resolve even the most rudimentary of legal disputes. In the wake of groundbreaking studies by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American Bar Association’s Commission on the Future of Legal Services, the need for alternative legal service providers is more prevalent than ever. The recent advent of legal technology tools powered by generative artificial intelligence has the potential to provide low-cost legal services for those who need it the most. This Article explores a litany of actors in the civil legal services marketplace that are harnessing the power of generative artificial intelligence to help bridge the gap for the most vulnerable. In addition, this Article contributes to a new area of legal scholarship advocating for a nationwide “Regulatory Sandbox,” allowing for lawyers, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and innovators to boldly envision a world where alternative legal services can empower our nation’s most vulnerable populations to gain broader access to the legal system and, ultimately, solutions to their legal ailments. Policymakers, stakeholders, and readers alike can view this Article not as a legal treatise, but as an informative and easily digestible call to action that seeks to solve the access to justice gap in the United States
Warhol, Drake, and Deepfakes: Monetizing the Right of Publicity in the Generative AI Era
Full text linkThe ability to easily recreate another’s face or voice and digitally superimpose it on one’s own has led to a surge in face and voice swapping using deepfakes and deep voices. This technology uses artificial intelligence to create digital replicas with hyperreal accuracy. These digital replicas challenge the underlying premise of the transformative use test that courts use to determine whether a right of publicity infringement merits First Amendment protection. This Note finds a win-win scenario where a stricter test combined with a likeness licensing repository may both allow for public figures to monetize their likeness and provide digital replica creators legal protections over their works
Banging the Gavel: Supreme Court Decisions That Shook the Nation this Summer: Prison or Pardon Politics
No full textFormer President Donald Trump’s campaign for a second presidential term has been plagued by legal questions. Can states disqualify a Presidential candidate who has arguably been involved in insurrection? Is a former President immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed during his presidential term, whether official or unofficial? The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases are demonstrably pro-Trump for the immediate election cycle. Speakers will break down the Court’s decisions in Trump v. U.S. and Trump v. Anderson for the impact on future Presidents and candidates and examine what could happen in the hypothetical extreme